In a historic action, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today will remove the ban on women in combat that has excluded them from jobs ranging from infantry squad leaders and tank gunners to commandoes.

The decision, praised by women's advocates but denounced by the conservative Family Research Council, ends a 1994 Pentagon policy that barred women from high-risk ground combat jobs.

Women often have seen combat anyway over the past decade, as 283,000 of them went to Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a Congressional Research Service report, with 144 killed and 855 wounded.

“I remember in 1990 when we went into the first Gulf War, there was an uproar about women going to the front lines and talking about women being taken away from their children and having to go to war, having to go into combat,” said Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau, a retired Air Force major general.

“Then when we went into the Iraqi war (in 2003), there were no longer those kinds of issues,” she said. “Those issues weren't raised because people were recognizing that we've done this for a long time, women are trained to do this.”

Military officials said Panetta would unveil details in a news conference this afternoon.

An implementation period is expected, though details of how the service branches will phase in the policy weren't clear.

Anu Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women's Action Network, which joined three officers and an Army staff sergeant in lawsuit led by the ACLU to overturn the policy, called the decision a historic moment.

The policy, and laws before it, were rooted in a military long segregated by color, ethnicity and gender. But barriers to women had fallen over the decades, especially after the Women's Army Corps was disbanded in 1978.

The combat exclusion policy had barred women from serving in around 238,000 jobs, said Bhagwati, who noted that many of those positions set the stage for higher-ranking assignments. Giving women the chance to compete for combat roles, she predicted, would improve retention and recruiting.

Women make up 14 percent of the 1.4 million troops in the armed forces

What is my investment in the matter? Well since the majority of my family are or have been serving I have some investment, obviously not as much as you. I think if a woman is capable of performing the job then her lack of a dick shouldn't matter.

I don't think it should be show and tell, but I don't think it should exclude a qualified person either.

Now please go on to tell me that no woman, ever, has been qualified.

Sure, there are a small handful of women who could meet the same physical requirements as the men but as has already been covered in this topic that’s not what is happening. They’re already dumbing down the requirements so they can accept women into a combat roll.

Sure, there are a small handful of women who could meet the same physical requirements as the men but as has already been covered in this topic that’s not what is happening. They’re already dumbing down the requirements so they can accept women into a combat roll.

Which I do not agree with. My point, and interestingly enough is one I am making in an online discussion board for Sociology, is that the requirements should remain the same, however, if a woman qualifies then her sex should not exclude her.

IMO, equality is not lowering the bar so the unqualified can qualify. It is providing the same opportunity for a woman to meet the standards that have already been set.

Which I do not agree with. My point, and interestingly enough is one I am making in an online discussion board for Sociology, is that the requirements should remain the same, however, if a woman qualifies then her sex should not exclude her.

IMO, equality is not lowering the bar so the unqualified can qualify. It is providing the same opportunity for a woman to meet the standards that have already been set.

This

__________________"And if you don't know where you're going
Any road will take you there" - George Harrison

Seems to me that the DoD made this decision because the lawsuits filed by some pretty impressive military females would have been tough to beat because of the evidence that would be presented. There have been many female casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think this mostly affects the females that really want combat assignments based on their own abilities and to advance their careers. Combat experience and performance are major factors when determining certain promotions.

I doubt that that the US military would ever give a combat assignment to any female that does not volunteer for it.

There is no draft right now and if Congress or the President ever reinstated the draft, there is no reason they could decide not to draft females, or to not put females in combat assignments unless they volunteer.

Lifting the restriction does not mean that the US military has become gender blind in how it does things.

Everyone think the 'team' dynamic of an infantry platoon can survive this? I will tell you folks who are complete outsiders or whom have not served in direct combat (or during peace time) in an Infantry or SOF unit, that it cannot. This goes FAR beyond physical requirements.

Introducing even 3 women to a Platoon of 45 Infantry Soldiers will lead to nothing but trouble. Half will try to bang them, the other half will try to protect them. This entire misadventure is going to do nothing but bring distraction to much more important business for leaders at all levels. Now we're going to concern ourselves with "how are the females going to sh*t out on a threee day patrol? How are the females going to conduct personal hygeine?" Instead of worrying about...I dunno...stuff like fire support, ammo resupply, communication with higher.

Women can be helicopter and jet pilots, MPs, interrogators, engineers etc etc. Pilots aren't grunts. Military Police aren't grunts...Grunts (Infantry) "close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver." This is their doctrinal mission. They actively seek out contact every single day- and that ain't riding in MRAPs in Eastern Afghanistan ladies and gents. It is back-breaking, lung burning work humping up 45 degree slopes with sometimes 70-80-90 lbs of kit. And then...getting shot at. And maneuvering... And shooting... And then back hauling a 200 lbs wounded dude with his extra 70-90lbs of equipment back down the mountain to a casualty collection point. And then...going back up into the fight.

Hell, even a fraction of men CAN and WILL volunteer to do that mission, and the dudes that can't hack it are soon gone. The argument that "Venus Williams" or some other superior female athlete could do it is illogicial. There isn't any training table with the best nutrition on a combat outpost. She won't be getting optimal rest. She won't be exercising or working out to maintain her high level of fitness. Over time, she'll just be an average female that Joe will be tempted to slide one in- when he should be worried about staying alive.

Seems to me that the DoD made this decision because the lawsuits filed by some pretty impressive military females would have been tough to beat because of the evidence that would be presented. There have been many female casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nah, I think it's because they're unable to meet their recruitment levels. Most females in the military oppose being in front line combat by about 80%. 'Er well last time I read.

Everyone think the 'team' dynamic of an infantry platoon can survive this? I will tell you folks who are complete outsiders or whom have not served in direct combat (or during peace time) in an Infantry or SOF unit, that it cannot. This goes FAR beyond physical requirements.

Introducing even 3 women to a Platoon of 45 Infantry Soldiers will lead to nothing but trouble. Half will try to bang them, the other half will try to protect them. This entire misadventure is going to do nothing but bring distraction to much more important business for leaders at all levels. Now we're going to concern ourselves with "how are the females going to sh*t out on a threee day patrol? How are the females going to conduct personal hygeine?" Instead of worrying about...I dunno...stuff like fire support, ammo resupply, communication with higher.

Women can be helicopter and jet pilots, MPs, interrogators, engineers etc etc. Pilots aren't grunts. Military Police aren't grunts...Grunts (Infantry) "close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver." This is their doctrinal mission. They actively seek out contact every single day- and that ain't riding in MRAPs in Eastern Afghanistan ladies and gents. It is back-breaking, lung burning work humping up 45 degree slopes with sometimes 70-80-90 lbs of kit. And then...getting shot at. And maneuvering... And shooting... And then back hauling a 200 lbs wounded dude with his extra 70-90lbs of equipment back down the mountain to a casualty collection point. And then...going back up into the fight.

Hell, even a fraction of men CAN and WILL volunteer to do that mission, and the dudes that can't hack it are soon gone. The argument that "Venus Williams" or some other superior female athlete could do it is illogicial. There isn't any training table with the best nutrition on a combat outpost. She won't be getting optimal rest. She won't be exercising or working out to maintain her high level of fitness. Over time, she'll just be an average female that Joe will be tempted to slide one in- when he should be worried about staying alive.

If a woman is capable of doing the job then she should be able to do the job. Every other problem is theirs and not hers. I think I have a little more faith in Joe.